The Protestant Reformation and the Orthodox Christian East - FR. PANAYIOTIS PAPAGEOR (Video Lecture)

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Lecture from FR. PANAYIOTIS PAPAGEORGIOU, Ph.D

I posted this in The Eastern Orthodox section but it goes with Church History so I posted it here also:

 

[Chris V++]

I thought it might be useful to summarize this informative video. The priest was filming from Wittenberg Germany. In the beginning the Fr calls the Eastern Orthodox the 'First Protestants' due to objecting to papal overreaching, changing the Creed, etc...
He explained how Charlemagne unified Western Europe using the Roman Church. The West was in the dark ages. Charlemagne used the Roman Church to unite Europe since the Europeans had Christianity in common, hence the Holy Roman Empire was formed. Charlemagne declared the East as pagan- esque, calling them 'Greeks' in a derogatory fashion. Some of the Roman innovations of that time were introducing unleaven bread in Eucharist, how Roman church made sexuality to seem dirty and sinful etc . He also discussed specific Protestant reformers in detail.
Toward the end of the video he is calling for Protestants to come into communion with the Orthodox Church. He stated Wesley was inspired by reading the early Christian fathers and Methodism has a lot in common with Orthodox and that Methodist thinking is the 'place where East and West need to meet.' He is suggesting Protestants return to the 'ancient roots.' for a true union of Christians in One Church to breach chasm between modern theories of atonement and the ancient Church. He argues there are too many conflicting ideas in today's churches. Christians must come to communion with the ancestral Church.

*edited for clarity

 

[Chris V++]

So what would Communion between the EO and the United Methodist Church look like in real life? Would communion just be an agreement between the leadership or would the UMC laity need formal Chrismation?

 

[~Anastasia~]

True communion?

Would be real unity. All of the things Orthodoxy holds as dogmatic would need to be accepted (basically the seven Ecumenical Councils) ... and the Sacramental reception into the Church would be needed.

That's what Communion looks like for us. Shared faith, and shared Communion. (I will also say we have a lot of freedom for certain beliefs that are not dogmatic - but the basics are non-negotiable. However, most Christians hold to at least most of them, in many cases all. We have fewer defined dogmas than the Catholics, for example, since much of their dogmas developed in recent centuries. But the way we understand some things is different from the western view.)

 

[Chris V++]

Shared faith, and shared Communion. (I will also say we have a lot of freedom for certain beliefs that are not dogmatic - but the basics are non-negotiable. However, most Christians hold to at least most of them, in many cases all.

I haven't known Methodists to venerate saints, nor do they believe that saints mediate for man. They also have more iconoclastic leanings. They practice open communion with grape juice. Are those beliefs obstacles to true communion with EO? I attend a contemporary Methodist service from time to time but never a traditional service so I don't know for sure what happens during traditional services.

I know the Ecumenicial Councils settled the issue of Iconography but what about saint veneration and open communion? Or was saint veneration covered in the judgments of the council when they settled debates about Iconography?

First seven ecumenical councils - Wikipedia
What We Believe – The United Methodist Church

 

[~Anastasia~]

I haven't known Methodists to venerate saints, nor do they believe that saints mediate for man. They also have more iconoclastic leanings. They practice open communion with grape juice. Are those beliefs obstacles to true communion with EO? I attend a contemporary Methodist service from time to time but never a traditional service so I don't know for sure what happens during traditional services.

I know the Ecumenicial Councils settled the issue of Iconography but what about saint veneration and open communion? Or was saint veneration covered in the judgments of the council when they settled debates about Iconography?

First seven ecumenical councils - Wikipedia
What We Believe – The United Methodist Church

There are certainly differences between doctrines.

I would have to check to see about canons and councils regarding asking intercession of the Saints. What I do know is that the Church approves it, and we cannot say that we know better than the Church and they are wrong. However, it is never a requirement for anyone to ask intercessions from any of the Saints. It is possible to be Orthodox and have reservations about it, and so avoid the practice, but it is also necessary to accept that the Church has reasons for what they teach and it's ok if we don't understand that - we just can't condemn the Church's teachings and set our own opinions above it. That's more an Orthodox mindset/phronema than anything dogmatic though.

Communion has always been reserved only for those baptized into the Church. And because of unfortunate schisms which exist within Christianity, today that means one has to be united Sacramentally with the Church (in this case EO) to receive the Eucharist. And it is set forth what form that takes and how it is prepared - bread and water+wine. These have deep theological meanings and cannot be substituted at our whim. (Though I have heard of priests in prison preparing a type of communion using what they had available - just as it is possible in an emergency situation to baptize a person by pouring sand on them if water is absolutely unavailable. This is written in the Didache.)

One of the major tenants of Orthodoxy is that the faith as we have received it from the Apostles must not be altered or changed. Protestants would have no such luxury because they basically came about in attempts to reform Catholicism, and so they are based on change. But I am also sure that essentially all Protestants seek to return to the early Church, and base whatever they do on how they interpret that to be.

But that means that the actual ways in which we (Orthodox) "do Church" cannot be compromised or changed. So we could not accept such variations, no.

But at the same we have a great freedom of belief in many things. It has been described as the Church being like a large fenced pasture. The fences are the borders - dogmas and such - that we cannot go beyond. But within those borders we have complete freedom to move about at will. Actually without knowing exactly what parts fit where, that's probably a terrible analogy for me to share, lol. But I can't think of a better one.

 

[Chris V++]

There are certainly differences between doctrines.

I would have to check to see about canons and councils regarding asking intercession of the Saints. What I do know is that the Church approves it, and we cannot say that we know better than the Church and they are wrong. However, it is never a requirement for anyone to ask intercessions from any of the Saints. It is possible to be Orthodox and have reservations about it, and so avoid the practice, but it is also necessary to accept that the Church has reasons for what they teach and it's ok if we don't understand that - we just can't condemn the Church's teachings and set our own opinions above it. That's more an Orthodox mindset/phronema than anything dogmatic though.

Communion has always been reserved only for those baptized into the Church. And because of unfortunate schisms which exist within Christianity, today that means one has to be united Sacramentally with the Church (in this case EO) to receive the Eucharist. And it is set forth what form that takes and how it is prepared - bread and water+wine. These have deep theological meanings and cannot be substituted at our whim. (Though I have heard of priests in prison preparing a type of communion using what they had available - just as it is possible in an emergency situation to baptize a person by pouring sand on them if water is absolutely unavailable. This is written in the Didache.)

One of the major tenants of Orthodoxy is that the faith as we have received it from the Apostles must not be altered or changed. Protestants would have no such luxury because they basically came about in attempts to reform Catholicism, and so they are based on change. But I am also sure that essentially all Protestants seek to return to the early Church, and base whatever they do on how they interpret that to be.

But that means that the actual ways in which we (Orthodox) "do Church" cannot be compromised or changed. So we could not accept such variations, no.

But at the same we have a great freedom of belief in many things. It has been described as the Church being like a large fenced pasture. The fences are the borders - dogmas and such - that we cannot go beyond. But within those borders we have complete freedom to move about at will. Actually without knowing exactly what parts fit where, that's probably a terrible analogy for me to share, lol. But I can't think of a better one.

Well if the Orthodox Church's approach is as gracious as yours I'm sure you will win converts from every denomination.

 

[Albion]

It looks like you all have gotten the point...and the problem. Union, when proposed by an Orthodox Eastern Christian, always winds up meaning "You guys should become members of our church just as it is."

 

[~Anastasia~]

It looks like you all have gotten the point...and the problem. Union, when proposed by an Orthodox Eastern Christian, always winds up meaning "You guys should become members of our church just as it is."

Essentially this is true. If "unity" means to compromise and accept changes to what we have always believed and done, it will be rejected. And I'm honestly thankful for that. You would find the same from the Oriental Orthodox I'm sure, since they have also essentially not changed in all the centuries since they separated from us and became OO (Chalcedon).

There is goodwill, and we are happy to welcome anyone to come to our services. We have people who choose to attend and be involved with the Church and/or our annual festival who come for years, and they are warmly welcomed.

It only becomes an issue when someone wants to change Orthodoxy, which does happen and gets a lot of press. Unfortunately we as humans have our failings and the Church has had its little bumps since the time of the Apostles as a result. By the grace of God, we do the best we can.

 

[Albion]

I agree with most of that except that Orthodox churches DO engage in talk with other churches and Christian peoples about the beauties of union, coming together, that we ought to do this, and etc.

Because they do not intend to actually find some grounds that would be acceptable to both sides, it seems like they should just say what you have basically said --"We think we are the true church, and of course we would welcome any other Christians to convert."

 

[~Anastasia~]

I agree with most of that except that Orthodox churches DO engage in talk with other churches and Christian peoples about the beauties of union, coming together, that we ought to do this, and etc.

Because they do not intend to actually find some grounds that would be acceptable to both sides, it seems like they should just say what you have basically said --"We think we are the true church, and of course we would welcome any other Christians to convert."

But don't you think talks are valuable, seeking common ground from which to discuss?

I can tell you that any Orthodox who might present it differently (even highly ranking ones) are deeply opposed by other clergy, laity, and monastics. There's no need to be rude or put up walls against other Christians. But no, a false unity can't be suggested either (at least not ecclesiastical unity - we can certainly work together in other ways.).

Without knowing specifically what you mean, it's difficult to respond.

 

[Albion]

But don't you think talks are valuable, seeking common ground from which to discuss?

Certainly. Are you saying that every time this happens, the Protestants are leaping to the wrong conclusion--that the Orthodox have no intention of seeking organic union but just like to talk in order to see if there might be areas of agreement that previously have been overlooked??

I can tell you that any Orthodox who might present it differently (even highly ranking ones) are deeply opposed by other clergy, laity, and monastics. There's no need to be rude or put up walls against other Christians. But no, a false unity can't be suggested either....

Just a minute. No one here had suggested working towards a "false unity." Whenever church union talks are entered into by whatever church bodies may be involved, the intention is to achieve, if possible, acceptance by both sides of an agreement both feel is doctrinally correct.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Certainly. Are you saying that every time this happens, the Protestants are leaping to the wrong conclusion--that the Orthodox have no intention of seeking organic union but just like to talk in order to see if there might be areas of agreement that previously have been overlooked??

Not at all. I'm just trying to respond to your post, without being sure exactly what you were suggesting.

But I think there can be productive talk in exploring what we believe. A certain amount of discussion is needed to really understand each other. If I use the word "divinization" or give a bare-bones description of theosis to a Baptist visitor, they will recoil from my explanation and think us complete heretics. But if I talk instead about the sanctifying grace of God working within us to transform us into Christlikeness, they smile and nod. SO many of the words we use and ways we talk introduce potential confusion.

Just a minute. No one here had suggested working towards a "false unity." Whenever church union talks are entered into by whatever church bodies may be involved, the intention is to achieve, if possible, acceptance by both sides of an agreement both feel is doctrinally correct.

Again, I was only trying to respond to your post without knowing what you might be suggesting. Forgive me please, no offense is intended.

My point though was that for us, we couldn't be ecclesiologically linked with a communion that insisted on communing non-believers, or any other non-negotiable points. I think that's safe to say that most denominations would hold similarly to particular beliefs they never intend to compromise.

I still think talks can be valuable. At least, I find it's sometimes valuable between individuals here on CF. It seems reasonable to me that there could likewise be some value between groups.

 

[Chris V++]

error

 

[Albion]

Not at all. I'm just trying to respond to your post, without being sure exactly what you were suggesting.

Ah. And that does happen with this kind of forum, so let's just forget the whole thing.

 

[Albion]

duplicate